Novel Insights Into Item Keying/Valence Effect Using Latent Difference (LD) Modeling Analysis

References

• Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Tisak, J., & Barbaranelli, C. (2011). Investigating the nature of method factors through multiple informants: Evidence for a specific factor? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 625–642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., & Larsson, M. R. (2009). Five-factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 335–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. T., Cunningham, C. J. L., & Ghorbani, N. (2011). The ubiquity of common method variance: The case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 417–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, B. G. (1999). Item reversals and response validity in the job diagnostic survey. Psychological Reports, 85, 213–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Castro-Schilo, L., Widaman, K. F., & Grimm, K. J. (2013). Neglect the structure of multitrait–multimethod data at your peril: Implications for associations with external variables. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20, 181–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2006). Further investigating method effects associated with negatively worded items on self-report surveys. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 440–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. W. (2009). Personality correlates of method effects due to negatively worded items on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 309–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Hurtz, G. M. (2003). An assessment of the prevalence, severity, and verifiability of entry-level applicant faking using the randomized response technique. Human Performance, 16, 81–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiser, C., Bishop, J., & Lockhart, G. (2015). Collapsing factors in multitrait–multimethod models: Examining consequences of a mismatch between measurement design and model. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 946. doi:http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00946
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiser, C., Eid, M., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2008). On the meaning of the latent variables in the CT-C (M-1) model: A comment on Maydeu-Olivares and Coffman (2006). Psychological Methods, 13, 49–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiser, C., Eid, M., West, S. G., Lischetzke, T., & Nussbeck, F. W. (2012). A comparison of method effects in two confirmatory factor models for structurally different methods. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19, 409–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffin, R. D., & Boyd, A. C. (2009). Faking and personality assessment in personnel selection: Advancing models of faking. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 50, 151–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 493–509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberger, E., Chen, C., Dmitrieva, J., & Farruggia, S. P. (2003). Item-wording and the dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Do they matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1241–1254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, C. C. S. (2016). Why do we still have an impoverished understanding of the item wording effect? An empirical examination. Sociological Methods and Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0049124115626177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, C., & Meyer, J. P. (2012). Do optimism and pessimism have different relationships with personality dimensions? A re-examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 123–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, C. C. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2015a). How careless responding and acquiescence response bias can influence construct dimensionality: The case of job satisfaction. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 512–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, C. C. S., & Meyer, J. P. (2015b). Implications of item keying and item valence for the investigation of construct dimensionality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 457–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konstabel, K., Aavik, T., & Allik, J. (2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20, 549–566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert, C. E., Arbuckle, S. A., & Holden, R. R. (2016). The Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale outperforms the BIDR impression management scale for identifying fakers. Journal of Research in Personality, 61, 80–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lance, C. E., Noble, C. L., & Scullen, S. E. (2002). A critique of the correlated trait–correlated method and correlated uniqueness models for multitrait–multimethod data. Psychological Methods, 7, 228–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W. (1989). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait–multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative self-esteem: A substantively meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810–819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 11, 344–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novick, M. R. (1966). The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 3, 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Paunonen, S. V., & Kam, C. (2014). The accuracy of roommate ratings of behaviors versus beliefs. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 55–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peabody, D. (1967). Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 7(Whole No. 644).
   Google Scholar
• Pohl, S., & Steyer, R. (2010). Modeling common traits and method effects in multitrait–multimethod analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 45–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohl, S., Steyer, R., & Kraus, K. (2008). Modelling method effects as individual causal effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 171, 41–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quilty, L. C., Oakman, J. M., & Farvolden, P. (2007). Behavioural inhibition, behavioural activation, and the preference for familiarity. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 291–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quilty, L. C., Oakman, J. M., & Risko, E. (2006). Correlates of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale method effects. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 99–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Rauch, W. A., Schweizer, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2007). Method effects due to social desirability as a parsimonious explanation of the deviation from unidimensionality in LOT–R scores. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1597–1607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012) When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis: A festschrift for Heinz Neudecker (pp. 233–247). London, UK: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Satorra, A., & Benter, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistics. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomás, J. M., Oliver, A., Galiana, L., Sancho, P., & Lila, M. (2013). Explaining method effects associated with negatively worded items in trait and state global and domain-specific self-esteem scales. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 299–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: Let's learn from cows in the rain. PLoS ONE, 31, e68967. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Caprara, G. V., & Tisak, J. (2014). Are method effects permanent or ephemeral in nature? The case of the Revised Life Orientation Test. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 117–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Schillewaert, N. (2013). Reversed item bias: An integrative model. Psychological Methods, 18, 320–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar